The article author has clearly never been to Bristol, either. “Picturesque streets” my arse.

The equive now would be

More soost it working for Brexit.

I find this vague and confusing.

Starmer didn’t even visit the constituency in the run up. However Labour’s biggest issue here is that the previous MP was sacked after he got into a fight while drunk one night and was convicted of assault, which was the whole reason there was a byelection. So it was kind of a coin flip on whether anything they could have tried would have made the situation better, and it easily could have backfired.

Nah that’s just Russia spreading its tenticles. Years ago Putin implemented a law that said 50% of all oligarch’s wealth would be directed by the Kremlin - it was still their money, they get to keep the profits, but Putin dictates how it’s spent. If they didn’t comply they would likely fall out of a window. Nowadays we have Russian oligarchs investing in all sorts of political activities all over the world, but everyone just acts like it’s an individual acting of their own accord and not foreign state interference.

The UK had US nukes at Lakenheath for decades up until 2007. Frankly, I think we’ve been a lot more vulnerable to Russia since they stopped - if anything removing the nukes coincides with Russia’s increased aggression.

The issue here is people are trying to apply scientific reasoning in a legal setting. The two are not the same. There is a legal process for bringing in scientific reasoning - you can’t just hash it out in court like you would in an academic paper.

I say the case needed a statistician. Incredibly, the prosecution deliberately decided to avoid using one to assess questions like “How unusual is this shift pattern for a random nurse?” or “How likely was it that said nurse was personally drawn to caring for the sickest infants? How were shifts assigned?”

Yes, it might have been better for Lucy if there was a statistician. However, it’s not the prosecution’s job to prove her innocence, it’s her’s and her solicitor’s. If there needed to be a statistical analysis and sworn statement from an expert, it would be on the defendant to arrange that.

By definition, she was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

No mention of how he was always a massive Russophile, and how Dominic Cummings started out on the UK politics scene as his advisor after living in Russia.

This cunt was a key part in getting the UK out of Europe at the behest of Russia.

I haven’t seen a thing about multiple accusers? The information I’ve read suggests it’s one accuser, with multiple events in the 2000’s and one recent accusation of rape in the 2020’s. In particular, the police statement said “The victim is being supported and given access to any specialist help or support she needs.”, which directly implies only one accuser.

and the police are confident enough in the case to have advanced to the arrest phase.

That doesn’t mean much of anything.

For all we know he could have been stitched up.

Norris, 65, was elected as the MP for North East Somerset and Hanham in 2024, defeating the Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg.

I wonder who will be lining up to try to win the seat after Norris is gone? Because he’s probably not going to be able to hold his seat, whether or not the charges stick.

Edit: In another article they mention that he also has a master’s degree in social work. More and more I’m leaning towards this being a potential stitch up. However, we don’t know what information the police have, none of that is public.

The USA detained her at the border because a) there was no direct way for her to go back home from the US/Canada land border; b) she had been refused entry by Canada, who have similar entry requirements, meaning the US should be refusing her entry also; and c) she had already been in the country for 3 weeks and they needed to investigate what she had been doing. That’s an awful lot more than just “vibes”.

But yes, as I said in my comment above, the length of detention is the real fucked up part. That’s longer than needed to sort the logistics or perform any necessary investigations, and proves that this is just about filling private prisons at the expense of taxpayers.

Canada was not in the same position as the US, so the two responses aren’t directly comparable. However, you’re right that the US is not a safe country - I’d even caution US citizens against crossing the border right now.

That one was at the Mexican border, and I think the woman was German.

You might be right, I remember the tattoo one being a girl who was turned away at another border before being detained by the US on her way back. If that happened in Mexico as well it’s easy to see why the two could get confused.

Like I say though the fucked up part is the lengthy detention. That doesn’t benefit anyone except the private prisons, at the expense of American taxpayers.

There is some reason to arrest her. She had already been in the country for 3 weeks doing who knows what, so now that they suspect she was doing something wrong it’s worthwhile to investigate.

There’s even some justification for making the detention a miserable process, so as to deter others. It’s very shitty, and I don’t agree with it, but there is at least a rationality about it.

The real kicker is the length of the detention. This isn’t in the interests of America, this is only in the interests of the private prisons padding their bill to the American taxpayer. The whole process is shitty, but this last part proves that they are only serving their own interests.

Yes that’s my point. There’s a bit more of a process from the Canadian land border than at an airport. At an airport, you’d just be turned around and paying for a flight. At the land border - particularly the border between two countries that don’t want you - it’s going to take a bit longer because the logistics are more complicated. Also, there might be some kind of investigation, as she has already been staying in the country for several weeks at this point.

However we should be talking about like 3-4 days at most (if that), not 3 weeks.

While I agree the time in detention was excessive, this wasn’t at an airport, it was at the Canadian land border. So it’s understandable that she wouldn’t immediately get on a plane back home - she’d likely have to be taken to a central facility and then transferred to an airport. But yeah, that shouldn’t take 3 weeks.

You’re angry at America and ICE, but it was Canada that refused her entry and first took issue with her activity. After that, when she immediately came back across the border, America was pretty much obligated to look into things.

They definitely should have just deported her immediately, but she apparently did break the visa terms. I read somewhere it was to do with her giving tattoos, or at least that was part of the accusation against her.

3 weeks’ detention is the fucked up part.

She narced on herself to Canada, then America overheard.

Exactly. Canada refused her entry first, then when America learned why they detained her.

She should have been deported and put on the next flight at her expense, not detained for nearly 3 weeks, but she definitely fucked up and took the piss with her visa.

His channel: https://www.youtube.com/@garyseconomics

Piped alternative: https://piped.wireway.ch/channel/UC5Ghe5TBQGYIOANuiNW4hDQ